Well I guess IL is finally gone. I went to their site and was bounced over here to Edmund's.

As far as the 10 worst Vettes are concerned, I do not believe there can be a "worst Corvette." True that some are better than others, like my 2010 ZR1 is the best of all. But to say some are worst is not accurate. Some just are not good as others, but all Vettes are good cars.

It's a tribute to the Corvette that 3 of John Pearley Huffman's "10 Worst" are on my personal wish list - the B2K (not fragile after the running fixes and updates that they all have had for 20 years now), the 98 Pace Car (purple and yellow = ultimate LSU tailgating Corvette), the 88 Anniversary (love the period white on white on white, and the blacked out roof gives the jet fighter canopy look)

JPH, If I could and had the money back then, I still would have a '74-'80 Corvette. When I was a little kid these were cool cars. That's why people bought these cars. My fav post-smog C3 was the 1978 pace car replica.

John, While I am not sure how the 87 Callaway TT fits. I own 3 90s ZR-1s and I added a Callaway to my collection due to its special place in history. The Callway is far from fragile; and I don't know of many that are not on the road due to mech failure. The stock TPI block was tough and easily ran over 100K miles. Callaway Reworked this block to be stronger with better internals. The turbo system is similiar to todays cars...so I am not sure where you arrived at your conclusion. Talk to any person who worked in that era and the Callaway TT is considered an engineering marvel. Lets not forget Callaway was going 250+ MPH in a street can lonmg before Bugatti. Enjoy:

These criticisms of the Corvettes seem based on nothing more than personal preferences by someone who does not like Corvettes. Some of the items mentioned have some warrant but most of them are simply a matter of personal taste. Who says everyone agrees with John Huffmans superior insight just because he says it? So it is just silliness to read this and take seriously.

I'm getting a little sick of reading articles that reference Corvettes and Porsches of the 1980s with 200-hp as anemic. You have to remember that this was during the time when a Honda Accord had 85 - 110 hp -- or even the small block V8s in a full size Chevy, Olds or Lincoln were 140-150 hp. In the context of their time, these were fast cars (I know because I drove my fathers 1984 Corvette with 205 hp). I suppose my frustration lies in a lack of research or an ability to understand something in the context of its time -- and appreciate it for what it is, versus compare it to something modern. It's kind of ignorant.

I know this article is a little dated, but it was just forwarded to me by a friend because it features one of my cars - he thought I'd find it interesting.

I have to say, as the owner of an '82 Collectors Edition I think its description in this article isn't very accurate. I won't deny that my car probably belongs on this list, but it doesn't belong here for the listed reasons.

The pinstriping, fade graphics, wheels and interior get me compliments from 'vette guys and casual observers alike. Even people who don't care for C3s (or "disco vettes") have said that the decals and drag-spoiler rear bumper really make the lines of the body pop more than others, helped by the metallic flake silver beige paintjob. It's also the only 'vette to ever have leather door and central panels which are far nicer than the plastic and carpet found in those which came before and after.

If you want to take a jab at the '82 you're not wrong that 200hp is on the low side, and that the lack of manual models was probably a mistake, but the real issue lies in the Crossfire fuel injection system. These things are a pain... I don't believe there's a factory crossfire car out there that isn't finicky, be it a 'vette, camaro or firebird. Maybe 1 in 10 is reliable enough to be a daily driver. This isn't because it's an inherently bad system, more because it wasn't around long enough for anyone to really get familiar with it, and because people think of it more like a modern injected vehicle than a carbureted vehicle in terms of reliability and maintenance.

A few things the 82 CE had going for it... Exceptional fuel efficiency due to the transmission and injection system, built "gasohol friendly" meaning todays 10-20% ethanol and methanol fuel is not a problem, back hatch makes the 'trunk' space useable unlike most C3s, every amenity of modern vehicles (power seats/windows/mirrors/locks, AC and heat, leather everything)

Sounds like this article was written by a Ford fanboy who got his butt kicked by a Corvette while out driving his cool foxbody mustang..... This is a pointless article that shows how ignorant the writer is. Most of the reasons you use to call these cars terrible are terrible! The Callaway didn't hold together well? HA! There were how many ordered again? About 500? 99% of them were probably put into collections and not even driven! How can you call them unreliable? That's ignorance at its best! Try getting a little more information about a topic before you write a stupid article. I'm not even going to touch the rest of the article... I'm sure it's plagued with your opinions too.....

To make critical reviews and commentary based on the cultural design and automotive technology of today is perfectly justified. However, to use the biased of the 21rst Century to evaluate and critique the automotive design and production of the previous century is short of complete incompetence. Any such critique of any era classic must include a commentary to address the era and all factors which led to its production. I know nothing of this J. P. Huffman; However, I do question his motives? Does he seek to manipulate this segment of classic car market for self gain? In his top ten Corvettes, he shows the money potential of the Barrett-Jackson Auction? Does he seek to temporarily depreciate this segment of “lesser” more attainable classics to allow him to purchase at reduced price for profit? It’s hard to say… However, the 1953 Corvette added to “both” his list has one of the strongest demands at auction? A 1953 Chevrolet Corvette Roadster (Chassis Num: E53F001005), sold at RM Auction in 2012 for $445,000. According to Huffman, the “first” production C1 Corvettes were the most problematic and least desired? In Huffman’s own words, “The first Corvettes were, simply and comprehensively, crude…” However, a 1953 Chevrolet Corvette '#003' (the oldest surviving production Corvette) sold at Barrett-Jackson for 1.1 Million dollars in 2006! Hmmmm… The plot thickens Huffman!

A weak engine does not make a bad car. It was not GM's fault that the government had recalculated horsepower ratings. The same thing happened to all cars being sold in this country. However instead of the writer concentrating on how many problem areas were being reported (which would be actual problem areas as reported by owners) they decide to blast a historical piece of moving art! Yes the '53s had problems but then it was also a GM experiment, and yet they do fetch a healthy sum of cash (similar to Porsche's Speedster, a bad car that is now commanding close to a million dollars at auction). Definitely a very well misinformed writer!

QUOTE: - ".....the base 350-cubic-inch (5.7-liter) small-block V8 was still gross rated at 250 hp. But when the 1975 Corvette came along, the big block was gone and the base "ZQ3" 350 had lost a half point of compression and gained a catalytic converter, which dropped its output to a paltry 165 hp."

That 165 is a net figure. Half a point of CR and a cat doesn't take 85hp out. Not even close. Just like all those pre-'71 "muscle cars" never cam close to producing the claimed 350-400hp, not once the engines were in the cars anyway.

Everything needs to be placed into perspective. All manufacturers who sold cars in the US after 1975 ran into the same horsepower drops as the Corvette. It was an agonizing time. When the Corvette L98 hit 240-245HP and the 5.0 Mustangs were hitting 225HP, it was indeed big news since both of these cars ran as well as their 60's counterparts. These Corvettes need to be celebrated because the model survived tough times.

No. Many of these were either ugly versions of decent models or made during that period in the mid to late 70s and early 80s when pretty much every car sold in America was underpowered junk, strangled by emissions regs that the industry was still trying to figure out. You don't have to compare them to "modern" cars. Compare them to their counterparts from the late 80s on or from the sixties to early seventies and they will clearly look pitiful.

The good news is most of the problems, including lack of power, are easy to fix on many 80s slow-mobiles. But the writer isn't talking about modified versions. He is talking about the weak sauce that came from the factory.

Appears to be an accurate assessment of the 10 worst! Either too complicated and unreliable or too underpowered and primitive comfort. The new rig sure is a monster for the standard config-probably gets 30 mpg too at 75!

To back the writer up a little bit (and I love Corvettes), a long time ago in a galaxy far away, I had a 71 Rally Sport Camaro with 245 hp that was quick but not super quick. So yea, those Corvette numbers are kinda bad.

I know this article is a little old... But to jbh30319: be fair to the writer. The 1975 Porsche 911 base model had over 230 HP. Pathetic by today's standards, certainly, your point is well made there. But in 1975, all GM could squeeze out of 5.7 liters was 165 HP? That IS pathetic. The cars are beautiful, and today, you can swap in some aluminum heads, and intake, and dual exhausts and be significantly north of 300 HP. GM's response to governmental controls was to strangle and choke existing technology to reduce emissions, and not to do any significant R&D into new technologies. The boat sailed without them on it and it took them 30 years and a bankruptcy to figure it out. So blame the government, blame the UAW, or blame anyone else that makes you feel better. But in my estimation, the blame lies squarely with GM. They saw the regulations coming, took the cheap way out, and paid the price for it. Dearly.

I don't agree with some of the Corvettes on this list, but only because there are worse Corvettes that aren't even on the list. Regarding the mid-late 70s Vettes, yes they are horrible but all American cars in that time period were horrible. But there was absolutely no excuse for how pathetic the late 80s C4 was.

Sounds like the person writing this is maybe a little butt hurt that he doesnt own a Corvette and therefore feels that they have to cry a little to be able to sleep at night. The truth is that ALL car models suffered through most of this time frame and were just as prone to having weak engines as the Vette was. If the Vette was this bad it wouldnt have sold as many as it has and wouldnt still be one of the most Iconic and sought after American made cars to date and in Automotive history. My L48 may be a weak lump to some but its my dream car and the dream car of many others too.

I'd agree with about 3 of these choices. The rest are kind of cheap shots and too subjective. Certainly the early C4s had enormous teething problems and need to be on this list. As for putting the '58 Corvette on this list--ever check out current prices of a '58 fuelie? The market doesn't think they're the worst, that's for sure!

His opinions lack logic, example the 79 and 78 are the same car except the 79 has higher hp but he targets the 79 because of paint scheme, also the 79 has higher hp than the 76,77. Why is he targeting the 79? He is clearly a hater, why else would you make such a negative list. More evidence to support his hate is when talking about the 79 quote "Chevy sold a scandalous 53,807 Corvettes during the 1979 model year". Clearly people liked the car why would they buy, this seems to really bother him that they sold so many that he calls it scandalous lol.